Ha ha ha – I just looked at the time – he goes on for eighteen minutes, and it’s only part one! The nerve! There’s nothing dudelier than expecting women to waste forty minutes listening to you mansplain why we should cater to you, when “fish” is the first thing out of your fucking mouth! Have you no shame?

Remember the delusional chap who rambled on aimlessly about the Camp Trans debacle for FORTY minutes? I was a little sad when he took that down. It was such a good introduction for newbs. Why are they all so booooooooring?

magicpoppy– it is the male energy, male biology, and male entitlement that just can’t seem to be “transed” away. Always lecturing to women about how to be women, sounds like every straight guy on earth, and then why are they so ugly looking too. It is all one big femme dress up game.

18 minutes of drival, and it’s all about the hair and the make-up, and the lecturing style. You can tell in an instant that these guys are nowhere near to female identity, because they are immitating men’s idea of who women are, not women’s idea of who we are. But they’ll never get this, because they just can’t help themselves, they have to lecture women and barge their way into women’s spaces and waste our time with their fashion delusions. How much do they pay to impersonate women?

I watched it all. The “fish” comment definitely obnoxious. It’s not unsurprising though. I have heard that from queens and gay men a lot over the years. That is totally acceptable to some people and you can see in the comments that they defend the use of fish repeatedly.

After that though, most of what was said is aligned with the original video. So in that way it was good.

I looked at another of that person’s videos about having children with a surrogate. And the language chosen to indicate the option to sire a child traditionally is not uncommon among hip-hop listening youth… but I wouldn’t generally think women would use it. So again it’s like the “fish” comment. I’m sure if anyone were to respond to that it would be defended tooth and nail. But it’s complete misogyny in any context. Hard to take someone seriously when this is how they speak of females.

I’m surprised to hear you say that. So far all your comments have been all “What about the menz??” and “Feminists should prioritize the needs of gay men in Cameroon” and “There is no male epidemic of rape and violence against women because the girls in my high school used to beat me up”. And “do not stereotype maleness” and “Dworkin was bigoted against pornography”. (I think that last one was my fave, btw.)

Well, no they haven’t. I’ve pointed out that I’ve been violently assaulted by men too. I’m trying to make the point that it’s not only men who spread hate and misunderstanding. I have been involved in many kinds of action against oppression and I don’t like to see oppressed people attacking each other when we should be working together. The worst oppression is probably against inter-sex people. We are falling into a trap if we persecute each other for trying to reach a better understanding of the issues.

What is the point of this concern trolling? That it could be a lot worse, and we should be grateful? Where have we heard that before? Why defend a male who thinks using this abusive language against women is his right?

Because they aren’t females, and have had male privilege, and they think they can demean women all the time by calling them “fish” or worse. Death threats, fish, having children with surrogates… it’s a crazy mixed up world of how men see the world. They know nothing else, and have no self awareness of how offensive they come off sounding. So they aren’t women; the proof would be in the respect for women’s actual opinions and boundaries, but they believe they have the penis right to invade everyone and everything; this is the heart of male speak and male tyranny. It is all one big falsetto’s waltz.

“I have entered this debate as a rookie, having decided decades ago that feminism is a good thing, but not a sufficient response to oppression. I have concentrated more on struggling against other aspects of repression, believing the disadvantages faced by women to be symptomatic the oppression of all disadvantaged people.”- Ashleigh Marsh on GenderTrender

@ Ashleigh Marsh – I’ve been violently assaulted by women, and I can’t condone that; nonetheless, the idea that violence is a legitimate response to personal ‘issues’ doesn’t come from women, it’s very much a patriarchal conceit. In fact, the notion that ‘issues’ are strictly ‘personal’ is highly-debatable within a culture that is misogynist and classist: divide and conquer. I wouldn’t seek to invalidate anyone’s feelings – feelings are always instructive – but would suggest that, given the realities of the culture we’ve grown up in, they’re apprehended thru a distorting lens. Your point about intersex oppression is well-made, but as such occurs only in the context of a false male/female dichotomy: specifically one that is male-normative; (biologically) female/non-female would be more truthful, less restrictive.There’s room on such a spectrum for all of us, and violence serves no-one’s interests, in the long run…

How does civil right persecute white people? Women’s liberation and civil rights movements seek to liberate people from oppressive legal systems, cultural practices and monsterous terrorist activities … wife beating, genital mutilation, forced marriage and forced childbirth, rape and the threats of rape and violence that all women face daily.
I can’t even go out before I see drunken stupid men taking over places that are “public.” Public and safe for whom?

The women’s liberation movement globally is the largest movement for freedom the world has ever known; it cuts across race, it cuts across class and nationalism (male supremacy). It is not about the rights of men, who own the law, own the military and own the streets at night– the women’s liberation movement is about freedom for women, born women. It is not about having women give up safe space to allow male invastion of locker rooms, it is not about males wanting access to the cotton ceiling and making sexual advances on lesbians. It is not about trans invading safe spaces for women. Women’s liberation is a freedom movement to overthrow the tyranny of male dominance and supremacy, with gender enforement and rampant femininity enforement a tool of patriarchy. It has nothing to do with the entitled male born, male aggressive, male insulting or male invasion of women’s spaces. Go get your own spaces, but leave us alone.

Obviously, any time women rise up, male supremacy is threatened. We are supposed to act like servants, door mats and prizes of men. we are not supposed to have our own lives free of men in our own homes, we are not supposed to be paid a living wage so that we don’t have to marry men if we don’t want to. We are not their rape objects, feminine playtoys or make-up wearing playthings. That’s the male view of what women are, not who we really are. The female impersonators would have no way of knowing this because they are men, and this is what men make fettishes of.

Feminism is not enough. It doesn’t always cut across class and nationalism. Women’s liberation can’t happen without men’s liberation, and if we assume men are all part of the problem, and present ‘men’ as the enemy rather than power structures, aspects of the bigger picture get lost. Much of the media and popular culture are manipulated to stir up antagonism between oppressed groups. I am not defending any group trying to define another, except to try and identify the corporate structures, formal and informal, and largely but not always patriarchal, that are the root of oppression. I am trying to go beyond ‘personal’ issues – however to challenge other people’s definitions, where they clearly do not fit with my experience, I’d rather cite personal experiences than make generalisations.

Most of my life people have tried to categorise me in one way or another – I will always resist this. Trying to fit people into boxes is abhorrent to me. People are complex, and ideological positions that don’t recognise this are dangerous, even where there is a basic search for truth and justice within them.

So you suggest that women and girls should resist “categorization” as members of the class of humans being raped by men? What is that supposed to do for them?

You suggest all violent oppression be framed as “individual incidences” rather than systems benefitting the class that rules the hierarchy? Women should consider being sexually assaulted as a “personal”, and apolitical singular event?

You suggest rich people are oppressed by class?
You suggest whites are oppressed by race?
Men are oppressed by sex?

when a woman is walking across a dark parking lot alone at night, how would you advise her to “categorize herself” to avoid rape and attack? Because this could save untold numbers of women’s lives if Ashleigh Marsh can teach us this Jedi mind trick!

The problem is, Ashleigh, those power structures are not some abstract concept or something that “just happens” like bad weather, they are all owned/controlled by men, every single one of ‘em. Those power structures are intentional and they serve a purpose. All men know this.

The other problem is that men are never going to ask for liberation from other men, because their male privilege is contingent upon the current hierarchy. The poorest, most marginalised of men still have privilege over women. Their willing participation in patriarchy is the small price they knowingly pay for that privilege.

Women shouldn’t be murdered (without a REALLY good reason), and the same goes for men/gay men/black men/any other damn sort of man as long as you include SOME MEN (cos women on their own DON’T COUNT!).

Bad feminism:

Women shouldn’t be murdered BY MEN, because statistically, it’s MEN who are the problem.

Really, really good feminism

Well, (some) women are oppressed, yes, but then men are too, and women can be just as nasty as men, and white privileged women can oppress poor black men, so I’m not saying anything now apart from why can’t we all be nice to each other…………….

I have yet to see a corporate structure that wasn’t patriarchy personified. And rape is not an apolitical act. All men benefit from having women terrorized and dependent. Men rape little girls to create a large pool of future prostitutes, since about 80% of prostituted women were sexually abused and raped as girls.

And everytime I read someone talking about “men’s liberation” what the heck is that supposed to mean? Men are the power structure, and obviously they are very happy with the ways things are. I see no massive outrage on the part of men to police other men, for example. And are men subject to rape and attack sexually as much as women are? Do women go around buying thousands of little girls and making them into sex slaves? Do women own the media that invents all these horrifying images to begin with?

As a woman and a lesbian, I want to be liberated from creepy male spaces altogether, whether it is the workplace or when I am walking past a bunch of creepy guys on a street corner. The fact that women are under constant threat of attack by both males, and now these fettishized female impersonators is all the more telling.

They called the American Revolution a men’s movement. All those so-called liberation movements are about groups of underdog men wanting power. We have yet to see a country that truly operates on a women’s liberation plateform, we have yet to see a major corporation that doesn’t exploit women, we have yet to see unpaid female reproductive work compensated. Women are men’s colonized lands, and they won’t let go of that power for anything. They love exploiting women, and raping women and pornifying women and calling born women fish. That is what patriachy is.

What is so hard to understand about the power hierarchy of male over female globally? And what is so hard about the concept that those born into male bodies still behave like domineering males? Honestly the trans must think women are idiots with this stuff, but it is so obvious. If you want to minstrelize patriarchal ideas of who women “appear as” don’t expect us to go along with the show.

It is very much an act of malesupremacist misogyny for a male to advocate the removal of the category “woman” from females. If the category “woman” is disconnected from the category female, why has he undergone cosmetic alterations of his maleness to imitate the female form ?
The fact is, beyond the dude’s tiresome, utterly arrogant, and distinctly male, misogynist doublespeak, woman is a sex-role “identity”, the oppressive, subservient procession of the female form.
There is no category of woman without the female body, and, clearly, no one knows this better than transnotwomen.

Well, I guess you might explain Margaret Thatcher or Lynn Rothschild as glorified products of patriarchy, but I don’t really think this will wash. Most oppressive structures are tied up with patriarchy, but I have found some women too to be greedy for power and unscrupulous in showing it.

“What is so hard to understand about the concept that those born into male bodies still behave like domineering males?”

It’s a concept – not all behave like that, and by re-inforcing the stereotype you don’t seem to provide any constructive route beyond it to a liberated society.

Men are not the enemy. Are they exclusively responsible for narrow mindedness?

“Women are men’s colonized lands, and they won’t let go of that power for anything. They love exploiting women, and raping women and pornifying women and calling born women fish. That is what patriachy is.”

Lot’s of men I know are not like this, and I will defend them as human beings. Your position is going too far in reaction. Feminism, like the Black Power movement, started with a sound critique of oppression. Then ideological extremism tried to oversimplify things. My belief is that this co-incided with the co-option of more and more Black people and women into the political and economic power structures – provided they adopted the paradigm of these structures – hence we see ‘Leadership’ projects for minorities being encouraged at the expense of grass roots organisations.

Maybe Ashleigh is one of those folks who thinks if she kisses men’s ass enough, it will save her own? It won’t tho. After men are done using her, they’ll toss her aside like some used up play toy. Stay tuned. Cuz after that happens, Ashleigh will probably do a 180 degree turn around and turn into one of the fiercest RF warriors around. **chuckle**

“Most oppressive structures are tied up with patriarchy, but I have found some women too to be greedy for power and unscrupulous in showing it. ”

Sorry, but you can’t counter an argument about women AS A CLASS, by citing individual examples. It’s like saying (what a good liberal would not get away with), by saying that blacks aren’t oppressed cos you’ve got a black president.

“Men are not the enemy.”
Okay, MEN as a CLASS are though, since it is men as a class that benefit from and perpetuate the structures.

If not men, who? Because then you just end up with the usual empty-headed nonsense that we ALL are somehow responsible for our own oppression (probably because we haven’t mastered the jedi mind trick of thinking ourselves out of the class female hence avoiding the threat of rape as we walk across the park at night………..).

Just the usual individualist versus class arguments nonsense that we’ve ALL heard a zillion times before. Doesn’t change one iota the FACT that all day, every day, you’re being judged and assigned and treated BASED on your membership of the class ‘woman’.

” and by re-inforcing the stereotype you don’t seem to provide any constructive route beyond it to a liberated society. ” Wrong in so many ways. First, there is a difference between pointing out the commonality of behaviour from members of a class, and stereotypes. So, waffling on , say, about the fact that SOME women rape, and SOME men rape, doesn’t change the statistics that say that rapist are overwhelmingly male. Pointing out that not all men rape may be true, but doesn’t disguise the fact that the common male behaviour that leads to rape is part of a structure that benefits men as a class.

Anyway, this reinforcing the stereotype stuff is just shite — because it doesn’t MATTER one whit whether we as women ‘re-inforce’ these stereotypes or not, because OUR influence isn’t the root of the problem, it’s the male-created and sustained structures that create these expected sets of behaviours. Whether we agree/disagree won’t make one iota of difference if you neglect to see the elephant in the room which is the patriarchal structures that propogate and perpetuate the behaviours of which male as rapist is just one.

It’s the same ole individualist versus class arguments, the same arguments the trans lobby use, and it ain’t feminism (or true).

- Margaret Thatcher: Taking over male values and male politics in order to be allowed to sit at the boy’s table. She is a collaborator extraordinaire, and everyone of us knows collaborators on a smaller range – the woman who silences a rape victim, the mother who drives her daughter into eating disorder etc. Their evilness is male-powered evilness, not genuinely female.

– re-inforcing the stereotype: First, it is not a stereotype. The world is RIFE with male violence. Second, as long as men are driven by muscle mass and testosterone, there is only so much they can do to change it. Third, it is not women’s and especially Lesbians’ business to conjure up ways for the betterment of the poor, poor males. Nobody demands that black people find ways for the betterment of white racists, but women should be nice and do for males again? Right.

– your belief: Believe what you like, but don’t tell others how to do feminism right. And as long men rape and kill, we will call them rapists and killers, because that’s what they are as a class. It may have worked with Sheherezade, yet being nice and talk down rapists and killers with pretty words does not work outside fairytales.